User talk:Noian/Jan2009

Anime series
For popular series they do -- see the List of Bleach episodes. This has been decided by conensus twice to split it. If you have complaints about this take it up with the Anime & Manga wikiproject itself. じん ない  03:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't get why I'd have to "take it up" with the wikiproject. I watch anime too, you know. I feel that wikipedia already puts too much emphasis on fiction (although I don't blame that from happening), and that rather than 1 list/plot summary article for each season, it would be better to lump multiple series into one article (basically divide them into "arcs" if applicable, although since I haven't been in the discussions, nor have the time to, I've withdrawn my comments). &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  03:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason is, because wikipedia works by consensus. You might have ideas and I do about how things should be run and be frustrated when you see things you don't like, but it's not a good idea to do that. As the argument to split the article was reaffirmed yesterday, this is almost a trout-worthy action. じん ない  04:12, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the link posted in the talk page? All I saw on the talk page (besides the link) was a closed due to "previous consensus" which is not reaffirmed, also I thought we were supposed to discuss things on the article talk page, not on its project page (reason why I replied here on the "take it up", otherwise I would have left my proposal up on the talk page, I know consensus, I'm not a complete new user, I don't have considerable interest in the article, just picked it off of New Page Review, so not likely to be frustrated). &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:14, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Normally yes, but as this is a split article. The fact is, there was consensus that the list had grown to long and other notable and long-running (that is the key here) series had already done that. The main page will eventually just become a list page.
 * If you want to voice your opinion, you can in the List of One Piece episodes page, but you'll have to have a good reason because you'd be going against a strong consensus of how things are done. じん ない  04:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said I was against splitting, I was against the method of splitting, but I really don't care as it creates good articles either way. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  04:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the current main page will cease to be an article and just become a listing of information when it's done. This will help streamline efforts to get some of them to possible B or even FL status like all of the Bleach and some of the naruto series. じん ない  04:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Another thing that makes long-running anime series like One Piece different than Scrubbs is that the series revolves around arcs and it changes and adapts in ways beyond what it was originally, usually getting darker and more complex as it goes along. With the exception of shows like Babylon 5, this type of evolution doesn't happen with most TV shows and far less with comedies like Scrubbs. じん ない  05:49, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggested combining it based on arcs (although usually that means seasons), and/or grouping a few seasons together into one article....(ps: scrubs actually did change through the seasons, although not on the scale here)...I've stopped even checking the article, so I'm at a loss to what the point of more talk on this is... &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  06:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to make the argument on the page that some of the smaller seasons could be put into larger groupings, that might get some support. I will stay neutral on it and go by seasons, unless you brings it up, but as you say you've moved on... じん ない  06:41, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and reintroduced it, although don't expect me to input much else into this. I've also gone back and looked at the scrubs list, and its even longer than what I remembered it to be before, so.... &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  07:00, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ROFL. Well, having a one-size-fits-all solution to fiction is hard since what is appropriate for one, might not be for another. Anyway, good luck. And in the future, before slapping a tag on something that was just archived because of current or past consensus, post. じん ない  07:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Open invitation
Hi, please check User talk:Arilang1234  Arilang  talk  22:15, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name)
User:Arilang1234/Sandbox/ Hua-Yi zhi bian(temporary name)

Please provide content:lead section and the rest.  Arilang  talk  02:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

???? I'm a bit confused at this, are you asking me to do it? There seems to be another editor who has more historical experience... &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  03:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Need your help again
I have created an article:User Arilang1234/Lao Baixing, is about 老百姓, I think this article is needed. Could you help me to build it up? <font style="color:white;background:#008000;"> Arilang  talk  08:24, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Redlink. I think a redirect/disambig page would be better as (I think based on what I can ascertain) it is just a pinyin of a chinese word that has a english counterpart, although I'm open to helping work on it. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  02:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

EuroHistoryTeacher
Hi there. Following on from my post, I see no possible resolution to this. Editor assistance is not helpful as I'm not really seeking one on one assistance (having edited WP since 2004, I am fully aware what all the policies are). User RFC is not possible because you need two editors discussing the same matter with the user on his talk page. However, EHT's behavior spans several articles (all related to Spanish colonial history), all of which are extremely low traffic, and therein lies the problem. There is only one really actively edited article, and the 2-3 editors there are not interested in ensurng that he provides references, so EHT views it as some sort of personal vendetta when I challenge his contributions and request sources. Combined with the fact that his view his recent completion of a course in Spanish colonial history at university affords him greater expertise than anyone else, this leads to inevitable problems. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC) ps please reply here - he watches my talk page and any reply there will just precipitate a huge rant...